64 bit, overhyped?

I've been a hardcore pc gamer since the original doom was released.

64bit processing seems to be creating quite a stur, but are those who advocate 64 bit processors promising more than will be delivered??? I've heard that you won't see any major performance gains unless you have over 4 gigs of RAM

Also, I don't remember the move from 16 to 32bit processors having much of an impact on anything except compatability with certain programs, so why should we expect anything more from 32 to 64bit???

Also, a friend of mine recently tried to tell me that bandwidth is more important than clockspeed and the # of cores that a cpu has, but that really doesn't sound right.

can somebody plz provide some answers?

 

It's always been, as is the Dual Processors.

Sure, its awesome, up to date, and like, 800000000+ benchmarks 'omg', but in the end, does one truly see themselves using it to their advatage, if using it to their maximum potential? Usually no, there are cases where, yea, they need every megahertz of power, every byte of RAM, etc.

 

It's not that you need more than 4GB RAM to see a difference. 64bit allows more RAM than 32bit, just because of the larger addressing range. But at the moment home users don't really need more than 4GB!

Yes bandwidth is important, if the bus that the multi cores run on is not wide or fast enough there will be a serious deterioration in performance. Also the way the CPU cache is managed affects performance.

It's not a clear cut what it most important for performance, it is a combination and sometimes depends on the application used.

In my opinion, 64bit is just where technology is going, it won't really have an impact that will force everyone to upgrade ASAP. But eventually everyone will have it.

 

64 bit will allow me to open Outlook and read my emails faster THAN EVER BEFORE !!!!

 

64 bit cpus won't come into their own until we have a 64 bit mainstream OS and applications that can take advantage of it... even then, only apps that need access to lots of memory (databases) or 64 bit integers (A/V transcoding, encryption, scientific visualisation) will see any real improvement.

64 bit is the way the marketplace is going, but it's hardly essential for 99% of home users at this stage.

 

Also...the adaptation to 64bit is a bit more troublesome than the 16bit-->32bit route, as there are way more consumer level users in the market now.

In the corporate world, it's easier to explain the issues involved to people about the transition and the costs associated with it, based upon perceived benefits from the switch. However, selling this change to consumers, requires a more gradual approach. You won't get all those home users out there to switch over without a fight. The people who only a buy a new PC ever 4-5 years max(yes...many many people will be in that category, as most don't push their machines like the people on sites like this...a fact it seems most people here forget) will not be convinced of the benefits easily. Therefore, you can't just have a unilateral move, or you risk losing a substantial portion of the market, as some other company will move in and offer them software to utilize on their older machines.

I think it'll be mostly 64bit in about 2-3 years. At that point, most titles will be available in 64bit and some titles will ONLY be available in 64bit. We probably won't see the demise of 32bit software for at least 4 years though.

 

YES, I can't WAIT!

 

64bit processor doesnt make much difference on a 32bit OS. But not everyone runs 32bit windows. linux, unix and winxp x64 OS are gaining popularity.

 

----------------------------------------

What about games, games are always the most painfully demanding programs that I ever run and would hope to see some benefits from my Pentium 4 630. A number of games are being made 64bit (half-life 2 patch, farcry patch, STALKER), so does anybody think that these games will see any major performance gains (i would test em myself but i don't have xp64, i hear it's buggy as hell)

 

Sure...those games will...but they won't be writing most near future games for 64bit, as that'd eliminate the market of all those 32bit machine owners. Just cause they can make a higher performing game, doesn't mean they will, if they won't have the market to sell it to.

That said, we'll see a number of 64bit games and applications showing up. It won't be a detriment...it just won't be widespread for a bit.

 

I can't speak on the 64 bit editions of Half Life 2 or Farcry, as for STALKER... is it even out yet?

I remember reading an article a while back (wish I could find it now) comparing performance between 32 and 64 bit applications under linux, which I based my comments above on. In addition, running UT2004 in 64 bit vs. 32 bit gained you a whopping extra 1.5 fps (55.5 vs. 54 fps). Perhaps you may see as much as 5% increase, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

Unless your app needs big numbers or lotsa RAM, the only other advantage is that x86 64 bit CPUs have more registers to work with, which will net you a reasonable speed boost... whether it's worth the increased code size is up to you.

 

Wow, you would think that being able to process twice as much data per cycle would yeild noticable performance gains, but i guess not.

Do you think that future games that are going to be developed with 64 bit in mind (can run in 32 but also utilize 64bit without having to download a patch, such as STALKER.) will see significant perform gains when running on a 64 bit machine as opposed to a patched UT2004. I've heard that alot of the games that have 64 bit patches don't see large performance gains when using those patches because the developers just kind of rushed them out and didn't take the time to really program their game to take advantage of all of 64bit's benefits.

Oh sigh, I fear that my p4 630 really isn't that much better than the 32 bit P4s. Oh well, in the distant future (a future of mutants and radioactive wasetlands), when programs require 4 gigs of RAM or more, my laptop won't be COMPLETLEY obsolete.